IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Transcription

1 Regents of the University of Colorado, The v. Allergan, Inc. et al Doc. 69 Civil Action No. 1:14-cv MSK-NYW IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO, v. Plaintiff, ALLERGAN, INC. and ALLERGAN BOTOX LIMITED, Defendants. [PROPOSED] STIPULATED ORDER FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS AND ELECTRONICALLY-STORED INFORMATION WHEREAS, the parties to the above-captioned case may seek discovery of documents, information or other materials that constitute electronically stored information ( ESI ); WHEREAS, the parties have, through counsel, stipulated to the entry of this Stipulated Order for Production of Documents and Electronically-Stored Information; NOW THEREFORE; upon the stipulation and consent of the parties and for good cause shown, the Court hereby ORDERS that: 1. SCOPE This Order shall govern the disclosure and production of documents and ESI in this case and supplements the provisions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 16, 26, 33, 34, 37, and 45 insofar as those Rules relate to the production of documents and ESI. 1 Dockets.Justia.com

2 2. DEFINITIONS Document shall have the same meaning as documents and electronically stored information defined in Fed. R. Civ. P. 34. (b) Metadata shall mean (i) information embedded in a native file that is not ordinarily viewable or printable from the application that generated, edited, or modified such native file; and (ii) information generated automatically by the operation of a computer or other information technology system when a native file is created, modified, transmitted, deleted or otherwise manipulated by a user or such system. (c) Parties or Party shall mean plaintiffs and defendants named in the First Amended Complaint. (d) Privilege or Privileged shall mean documents or parts of documents that are protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege; the work product doctrine; or any other applicable privilege or doctrine recognized by law. 3. IDENTIFICATION AND REVIEW PROTOCOL If the producing party elects to use search terms to locate potentially responsive ESI, it shall disclose the proposed search terms and the proposed repositories to be searched along with its responses and objections to the discovery request. As to discovery requests and responses that were served prior to the filing date of this stipulation, the producing party shall disclose no later than March 31, 2015, the proposed search terms and the proposed repositories to be searched. If the requesting party objects to the proposed search terms or proposed repositories to be searched, the parties shall meet and confer within 14 days of the producing party disclosing proposed search terms, and the parties shall attempt in good faith to reach an agreement regarding the scope of the search. If the parties cannot agree on search terms or 2

3 repositories, the parties shall simultaneously (but no later than 21 days from the first disclosure of proposed search terms) submit competing proposals to the Court, which will select one of the proposals. 4. PRIVILEGE LOGS The parties are not required to include information in their privilege logs that was generated after June 3, 2014, the filing date of the Complaint in this matter. (b) Activities undertaken in compliance with the duty to preserve information are protected from disclosure and discovery under Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(3)(A)-(B). (c) Within 45 days of making a production from which documents are withheld on the basis of privilege, the producing party shall serve a privilege log on the requesting party that lists the documents withheld from the production. (d) A party s privilege log shall include: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) the Bates numbers of each withheld document, the date of the document, a description of the type of document (e.g., , memo), the author(s) and recipient(s) of documents, as listed on the document, a description of the general subject matter and/or contents of the document that does not itself reveal privileged information, but which sufficiently establishes the elements of each asserted privilege, and (vi) the privilege claimed (e.g., attorney-client communication privilege or work product doctrine ) (e) Intentional or inadvertent inclusion of privileged information in a privilege log will not be deemed a waiver of privilege. 3

4 (f) This protocol for privilege logs may be modified by written stipulation of the parties. This protocol for privilege logs may also be modified by order of the Court sua sponte or upon a party s motion following a good faith meet and confer by the parties regarding any proposed changes, and an informal discovery conference with the court. (g) If the requesting party objects to a claim of privilege for a document listed on a privilege log, the requesting party must meet and confer with the producing party within 14 days of receiving the privilege log, or within 14 days of receiving new information that provides a new basis to object to a claim of privilege. The meet and confer may involve the producing party supplementing the privilege log to provide more information as to the basis for the claim of privilege. If the parties cannot, in good faith, resolve the dispute, the requesting party will initiate the informal discovery dispute process with the court within 7 days of the conclusion of the meet and confer, and shall file any motion with the Court within 7 three (3) days of the conclusion of the meet and confer effortsinformal discovery conference with the court. 5. PRODUCTION SPECIFICATIONS Documents shall be produced in the following format: (i) TIFFs: ESI and non-esi shall be produced to the requesting party as single page TIFF images and associated multi-page text files containing extracted text or OCR with Concordance and Opticon load files containing all requisite information including relevant metadata. (ii) Native Format: The only files that should be produced in native format are files not easily converted to image format, such as Excel or Access files. Native files will be produced with a full path to the native document from the NATIVEPATH field. Bates- 4

5 numbered slip sheets will also be provided. (b) Metadata: The following metadata fields, if they exist, shall be provided along with a production of documents: Custodian; Subject; From; To; CC; BCC; Date Sent; Date Received; Filename; Author; Date Created; Attachment Range; Attachment Begin; Attachment End (or the equivalents thereof). (c) Bates numbering: Documents produced in this action must bear Bates numbers, which shall be unique IDs with a prefix that can be readily attributed to the producing party. Bates numbering should be sequential. The parties agree to use placeholders (e.g., intentionally left blank pages), rather than skipping Bates numbers in productions. (d) Unitizing of documents: Documents produced in this action should be logically unitized: multiple documents should not be merged into a single record, and single documents should not be split into multiple records. The parties will make their best efforts to have their service providers unitize documents correctly and will commit to address situations where there are improperly unitized documents. (e) Parent-Child Relationships: Documents parent-child relationships (the association between an attachment and its parent document for example, s and their attachments) should be preserved. Bates numbering of a parent document and any attachments should be sequential such that a parent document has the lowest value Bates number when compared to its attachment(s). 5

6 6. PRESERVATION The parties acknowledge that they have taken reasonable steps to implement a litigation hold with respect to accessible or inaccessible information, documents, and other tangible objects in the parties custody or control that are potentially relevant to this matter. (b) This Order does not modify any document preservation requirements under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and applicable case law. This Order does not limit any protection available under Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(e). (c) The Parties agree that the following categories of attached as Schedule A need not be preserved. 7. NON-PARTY PRODUCTIONS Unless otherwise agreed among the parties, the party that first issues a non-party subpoena (the First Party ) will be responsible for: (1) taking reasonable steps to negotiate that the non-party s production are processed in accordance with the specifications in this Order; (2) if necessary, engaging a vendor to process the non-party production in accordance with the specifications in this Order; (3) distributing non-party productions to all parties counsel within 7 days of receiving the production. (b) If a non-party production is not Bates numbered, the First Party will provide unique prefixes and Bates numbers to the service provider and will notify all parties of the prefix, Bates range, and production. 8. MISCELLANEOUS Additional Parties. Any party named, served, and appearing in this action after the date this Order is approved, shall be bound by its terms, effective once the Order has been served upon such party, unless the Court orders otherwise on good cause shown. 6

7 (b) Further Amendment. Except as otherwise provided in this Order, its terms may be amended only by written stipulation of the parties, to the extent that such amendment does not affect any requirement by the court, or by order of the Court, on noticed motion, for good cause shown. (c) Objections Preserved. This Order does not address, limit, or determine the relevance, discoverability, or admission into evidence of any document. Nor do the parties waive any objections as to the production, discoverability, or confidentiality of documents subject to this Order. The parties will request that the Court enter a separate protective order governing productions in this matter. DATED at Denver, Colorado, this 30 th day of March, BY THE COURT: s/ Nina Y. Wang United States Magistrate Judge 7

9 SCHEDULE A 1. Deleted, slack, fragmented, or other data only accessible by forensics. 2. Random access memory (RAM), temporary files, or other ephemeral data that are difficult to preserve without disabling the operating system. 3. On-line access data such as temporary Internet files, history, cache, cookies, and the like. 4. Data in metadata fields that are frequently updated automatically, such as last-opened dates. 5. Back-up data that are substantially duplicative of data that are more accessible elsewhere. 6. Voice messages. 7. Instant messages that are not ordinarily printed or maintained in a server dedicated to instant messaging. 8. Electronic mail or pin-to-pin messages sent to or from mobile devices (e.g., iphone and Blackberry devices), provided that a copy of such mail is routinely saved elsewhere. 9. Other electronic data stored on a mobile device, such as calendar or contact data or notes, provided that a copy of such information is routinely saved elsewhere. 10. Logs of calls made from mobile devices. 11. Server, system or network logs. 12. Electronic data temporarily stored by laboratory equipment or attached electronic equipment, provided that such data is not ordinarily preserved as part of a laboratory report. 13. Data remaining from systems no longer in use that is unintelligible on the systems in 1

DEFAULT STANDARD FOR DISCOVERY, INCLUDING DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION {"ESI") 1. General Provisions a. Cooperation. Parties are expected to reach agreements cooperatively on how to conduct

Case 2:14-cv-02159-KHV-JPO Document 12 Filed 07/10/14 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS KYLE ALEXANDER, and DYLAN SYMINGTON, on behalf of themselves and all those

DISCOVERY OF ELECTRONICALLY-STORED INFORMATION IN STATE COURT: WHAT TO DO WHEN YOUR COURT S RULES DON T HELP Presented by Frank H. Gassler, Esq. Written by Jeffrey M. James, Esq. Over the last few years,

PROPOSED ELECTRONIC DATA DISCOVERY GUIDELINES FOR THE MARYLAND BUSINESS AND TECHONOLOGY CASE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM JUDGES What follows are some general, suggested guidelines for addressing different areas

Rule 45. Subpoena. (a) Form; Issuance. (1) Every subpoena shall state all of the following: a. The title of the action, the name of the court in which the action is pending, the number of the civil action,

Document management solutions Litigation Support glossary of Terms Learn How to Talk the Talk Covering litigation support from A to Z. Designed to help you come up to speed quickly on key terms and concepts,

Friday 31st October, 2008. It is ordered that the Rules heretofore adopted and promulgated by this Court and now in effect be and they hereby are amended to become effective January 1, 2009. Amend Rules

Case4:12-cv-03288-KAW Document2-1 Filed06/25/12 Page1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, OAKLAND DIVISION STANDING ORDER FOR MAGISTRATE JUDGE KANDIS A. WESTMORE (Revised

Supreme Court Rule 201. General Discovery Provisions (a) Discovery Methods. Information is obtainable as provided in these rules through any of the following discovery methods: depositions upon oral examination

INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING CASE MANAGEMENT PLAN The following provisions apply to civil cases filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana that are not exempt from filing

Copyright The information transmitted in this document is intended only for the addressee and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any interception, review, retransmission, dissemination

Case3:11-cv-00167-SI Document62-14 Filed02/04/11 Page1 of 6 EXHIBITM To THE DECLARATION OF HOLLY GAUDREAU IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR EXPEDITED DISCOVERY Case3:11-cv-00167-SI Document62-14 Filed02/04/11 Page2

What is ediscovery? Electronic discovery ( ediscovery ) is discovery of electronic information in litigation. ediscovery in California is governed generally by the Civil Discovery Act. In 2009, the California

ESI: Federal Court An introduction to the new federal rules governing discovery of electronically stored information In September 2005, the Judicial Conference of the United States unanimously approved

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO THE TENNESSEE RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE Filed: June 20, 2008 ORDER The Advisory Commission on the Rules of Practice & Procedure annually

E-Discovery Quagmires An Ounce of Prevention is Worth a Pound of Cure Rebecca Herold, CISSP, CISA, CISM, FLMI Final Draft for February 2007 CSI Alert While updating the two-day seminar Chris Grillo and

Case 6:13-cv-01168-EFM-TJJ Document 157 Filed 06/26/15 Page 1 of 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff, PREMIUM BEEF FEEDERS,

Electronic Discovery L. Amy Blum, Esq. UCLA University of California, Los Angeles 1 Topics Not Covered Best practices for E-mail E use and retention in the ordinary course of business Records Disposition

E-Discovery in Michigan ESI Presented by Angela Boufford DISCLAIMER: This is by no means a comprehensive examination of E-Discovery issues. You will not be an E-Discovery expert after this presentation.

RULE 10 FUNDS HELD BY THE CLERK 10.1 General. A Judge of the District Court may order that any monies in actions pending before the Court be invested in any local financial institution for safe keeping.

Electronic Discovery and the New Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: A Guide For In-House Counsel and Attorneys By Ronald S. Allen, Esq. As technology has evolved, the federal courts have

What follows isn t the perfect preservation letter for your case, so don t simply treat it as a form. Use it as a drafting aid that flags issues unique to EDD, but tailor your preservation demand to the

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA CHARLESTON DIVISION IN RE: BOSTON SCIENTIFIC CORP., PELVIC REPAIR SYSTEM PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION THIS DOCUMENT RELATES

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ALASKA ORDER NO. 1682 Amending Civil Rules 16, 26, 33, 34, 37, and 45 concerning Discovery of Electronic Information IT IS ORDERED: 1. Civil Rule 16 is amended to read

BEST PRACTICES FOR ELECTRONIC DISCOVERY IN CRIMINAL CASES Western District of Washington Adopted March 21, 2013 These best practices reflect recommendations adopted in February 2012 by the Department of

Case 5:11-cv-00360-OLG-JES-XR Document 1130 Filed 07/09/14 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SAN ANTONIO DIVISION SHANNON PEREZ, ET AL, Plaintiffs, v. RICK

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF ALASKA THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT AT ANCHORAGE In the Matter of a ) Uniform Pretrial Order ) ) Administrative Order 3AO-03-04 (Amended) UNIFORM PRETRIAL ORDER In order

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA PROTOCOL FOR THE USE OF INTERACTIVE VIDEO CONFERENCING CIVIL The following provisions apply to civil matters: 1. General Provisions The court may conduct

Published on Arkansas Judiciary (https://courts.arkansas.gov) Rule 26. General Provisions Governing Discovery. (a) Discovery Methods. Parties may obtain discovery by one or more of the following methods:

AN E-DISCOVERY MODEL ORDER INTRODUCTION Since becoming a staple of American civil litigation, e-discovery has been the subject of extensive review, study, and commentary. See The Sedona Principles: Best

Article originally appeared in the Fall 2011 issue of The Professional Engineer Electronic Discovery in Litigation By Douglas P. Jeremiah, P.E., Esq. Your firm is involved in litigation and you get the

November 2006 New E-Discovery Rules: Is Your Company Prepared? By Maureen O Neill, Kirby Behre and Anne Nergaard On December 1, 2006, amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ( FRCP ) concerning

Case 2:11-cv-01174-TS-PMW Document 257 Filed 02/03/15 Page 1 of 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH CENTRAL DIVISION SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a Utah municipal corporation;

Federal Rule Changes Affecting E-Discovery Are Almost Here - Are You Ready This Time? An Overview of the Rules, History and Commentary Absent congressional action to reject, modify or defer proposed amendments

UNDERSTANDING E DISCOVERY A PRACTICAL GUIDE 1 What is ESI? Information that exists in a medium that can only be read through the use of computers Examples E-mail Word Documents Databases Spreadsheets Multimedia

Making Sense of E-Discovery: 10 Plain Steps for Producing ESI The following article provides a practical guide to producing electronically stored information (ESI) that lawyers can apply immediately in

The Top Ten List (and one) of Changes to the Federal Rules The List (1) The rules now refer to electronically stored information, which is on equal footing with paper. Rules 26(a)(1), 26(b)(2), 26(b)(5)(B),

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS GUIDELINES FOR CASES INVOLVING ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION [ESI] These guidelines are intended to facilitate compliance with the provisions

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON C STATE OF GEORGIA In re: ) ) CERTAIN LITIGATION ) ) In the Superior Court of Fulton County ) ) DEPUTY CLEr~K SUPERIOR COURT FULTON COUNTY, GA AMENDED ORDER Il\1PLElVIENTING

: Discovering What There Is to Discover One of the challenges in electronic discovery is identifying the various sources of electronically stored information (ESI) that could potentially be relevant to